Ryann Alyse Atkins

The plaintiff, Allan Mann, sued his former criminal defence lawyers, Edward H. Royle and James Miglin, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related wrongs arising from their representation in his criminal proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process and for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that such a claim constitutes an improper collateral attack on the criminal conviction and sentence, which were never appealed.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

This is a costs endorsement following the disposition of three appeals.

The parties settled the issue of costs by agreement.

The appellant was ordered to pay costs of $13,750, all inclusive, to the respondents.

The appellant, Voreon Inc., appealed the dismissal of three applications arising from a business relationship breakdown.

Two appeals concerned real estate developments (Higher Living and Eminence Living) and the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement versus a shareholders agreement regarding promissory notes.

The third appeal (MHH appeal) involved a mortgage's validity, a set-off claim for a promissory note, and the transfer of condominium units.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Higher Living and Eminence Living appeals, affirming the application judge's finding that the Settlement Agreement superseded the shareholders agreement and discharged the promissory notes.

However, the MHH appeal was allowed in part, remitting the issues of the $64,135 set-off note and the transfer of the parking/storage units to the Superior Court for adjudication, citing unaddressed issues and a palpable error regarding party status.

This endorsement addresses four motions, primarily focusing on a refusals motion brought by the judgment creditor (plaintiff) in a garnishment proceeding.

The court dismissed the judgment creditor's refusals motion, finding that the questions posed to the garnishee were irrelevant to the core issue of whether the garnishee was indebted to the judgment debtor.

The judge emphasized that garnishment proceedings focus on current or future indebtedness and that questions about tax treatment or general business affairs unrelated to this core issue constitute an improper fishing expedition.

This decision addresses a costs award following a successful motion by the defendants, Ka An Development Co. Limited and Chang Yu Liu, to have the action against them stayed or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $83,448.81, considering their complete success on the dispositive motion, the plaintiffs' unreasonable resistance to setting aside a noting of default, and the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the motion timetable and file responding costs submissions.

The appellant, Canadian Home Publishers Inc., appealed a judgment that dissolved the limited partnership upon the death of its sole limited partner, David Colville-Reeves, and awarded his estate a 50 percent share in the residual assets of the partnership.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in importing the residual distribution provision from section 44 of the Partnerships Act into the Limited Partnerships Act.

The court held that a limited partner's rights are strictly defined under the Limited Partnerships Act and do not include participation in residual assets upon dissolution.

The limited partner is entitled only to their share of profits and return of their capital contribution.